A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Monday, 31 January 2011

David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, has co-authored a new study into the free provision of morning-after pills via pharmacies. Dr Paton told today's Telegraph:

“We find that offering the morning-after pill free of charge didn’t have the intended effect of cutting teenage pregnancies but did have the unfortunate side of effect of increasing sexually transmitted infections. By focusing on sexually transmitted infections, it allows us to test whether there is an impact on sexual risk-taking, and that seems to be the implication.”

And as Dr Paton says in the study itself:

"Empirical studies to date suggest that schemes to increase access to [morning-after pills] have failed to result in observable decreases in unwanted pregnancy or abortion rates ... [O]n average, the presence of a pharmacy [morning-after pill] scheme in a local authority is associated with an increase in the rate of STI diagnoses amongst teenagers of about 5%. The equivalent figure for U16s is even larger at 12%."

Time and again we see how the culture of death does young people a grave disservice, telling them that:

losing their virginity before marriage is inevitable

sex using artificial birth control is consequence-free; and

abortion is always there as a back-up.

As a result the UK has stubbornly highest rates of teenage pregnancy, teenage sexually-transmitted infection and teenage abortion.

Dr Paton has provided a reliable basis upon which David Cameron's government can safely throw the Labour government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy - which emphasised increased morning-after pills access (personally endorsed by Tony Blair*) - into the dustbin of history marked "Failed".

Saturday, 29 January 2011

Melinda Tankard-Reist (pictured), an Australian pro-life bioethicist, has written an excellent article analysing the wrongness of surrogacy. I've posted some choice quotes from Melinda's article below.

"The objectification of women's bodies and commodification of childbirth came together yesterday in a single antiseptic phrase contained in the announcement of a second child for actress Nicole Kidman and her musician husband Keith Urban:

'Our family is truly blessed . . . to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret. No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier.'

"In those last two words, the woman whose body nurtured this child for nine months is stripped of humanity. The phrase is reminiscent of other terms popular in the global baby-production industry, such as suitcase, baby capsule, oven and incubator. The detached language views women as disposable uteruses. This dismantling of motherhood denies the psychological and physiological bonds at the heart of pregnancy."

"Of course the birth of any baby is worthy of celebration. But that doesn't mean we should avoid hard questions about the fragmentation of motherhood, about a child who may wonder about their birth mother and why she is not raising them."

"In the US commodification of a child knows few limits. Journalist Bill Wyndham, pretending to be a single, HIV-positive gay man, was told by a surrogacy company he'd make a perfect dad. He was, however, not allowed to adopt a puppy from the dog pound."

"The process of pregnancy, labour and delivery followed by summoning extraordinary reserves of strength to surrender that baby, cannot be reduced to the science fiction that the woman who does all this is merely a 'gestational carrier'."

Friday, 28 January 2011

The High Court hearing into bedroom abortions (see 13 January SPUC release), being held this afternoon, will not conclude today but will continue next Friday (4 February). This is due to delays in the court's schedule today. SPUC is being represented by legal counsel at the hearing.

Thursday, 27 January 2011

The fourth International Youth Pro-Life Conference, organised by SPUC, will be held between Friday 18 and Sunday 20 March this year at the Loch Lomond Youth Hostel, north-west of Glasgow, Scotland. This conference is an excellent opportunity for young people from across the globe to network, socialise, make friends and empower one another to spread the pro-life message. This year's conference will be building on the last 3 years’ conferences that have seen hundreds of young people from all over the world come together to learn about pro-life issues, get ideas of how to actively defend and promote life and meet with fellow pro-lifers.

This year’s conference has the theme No Less Human. The focus will be on the value and need to defend all human life, regardless of the physical or mental characteristics of that life or particular stage of life development.

If you are aged between 16-35 years of age and would like to attend this amazing weekend, please visit the conference website http://spucconference.org.uk or contact Joe Lee in the SPUC Scotland office on (0141) 221 2094 or email at joe@spucscotland.org

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Monday's Independent newspaper featured an interview with Dr Ann McPherson, who is a spokesman and activist for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) (now all-too-conveniently repackaged as "Dignity in Dying") and its offshoot, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying - which should more accurately be named "Killing Not Care". The end of the inteview reads:

"McPherson acknowledges that people may be depressed, or feel a burden, or come under pressure from relatives. But these issues are not peculiar to dying – they apply in other areas such as abortion.

Like the Abortion Act, an Assisted Dying Act would be about giving people – in this case the terminally ill – the right to choose. And as with abortion 'you would probably need two doctors to approve it.'"

This is not the first time that the pro-death lobby has argued for assisted suicide using a comparison with the Abortion Act. Debbie Purdy, the disabled woman whose VES-backed court case led to the undermining of protection for the disabled, said:

"Since the 1961 Suicide Act was introduced we have legalised homosexuality and abortion without making them compulsory. We need to look at the law on assisted suicide again and think about how that could be legalised too with proper safeguards in place."

So it's unsurprising that Dr McPherson doesn't sound particularly bothered about assisted suicides requested under duress. After all, most legal abortions are unwanted or coerced. McPherson's and Wooton's support for assisted suicide is, like their support for abortion, based more on ideology than patient welfare. Should assisted suicide be enshrined in law, the VES will soon be working to undermine the very safeguards they claim to support - just as the pro-abortion organisations which Sarah Wootton used to work for are now lobbying to remove the two-doctors requirement.

So the VES has very helpfully set out their road-map for assisted suicide and euthanasia, based on abortion law. If that road-map is followed, we will thefore see:

permission in so-called 'hard cases' lead to killing on demand and killing under duress

so-called safeguards ignored, falsely interpreted and undermined

medics and others with a conscientious objection persecuted

taxpayers' money diverted

and many of the other evils attendant upon the practices of the culture of death.

In 1925 a certain Austrian politician set out his own road-map for changing societal norms, including a rejection of the sanctity of life. Many people dismissed the road-map, and labelled the people warning about it as scaremongers. 20 years later over 50 million people lay dead, including millions killed through the author's openness to suicide, euthanasia and abortion. It's high time for a road-block, so I'm greatly relieved by last night's vote by the French Senate to reject assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Overnight the French Senate rejected proposals to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia, by 170 votes to 142. Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, had spoken out strongly against the proposals.

As I told the media earlier today, I hope that this victory for life will help people in the UK understand the strong opposition elsewhere to assisted suicide and euthanasia. The UK will do irreparable damage to its international reputation if it continues down the path of killing patients. The French vote is a wake-up call to UK politicians to start overturning laws, policies and court judgments which enshrine euthanasia by dehydration and which tolerate assisted suicide. I express our congratulations and admiration for the French pro-life movement in securing this victory for the sick, the disabled and the elderly.

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Today Catholics celebrate the Conversion of St Paul. In his Epistle to the Romans, St Paul says (2:11):

"For there is no respect of persons with God"

Respecting persons is rejected in numerous other places in Sacred Scripture. It means that God's law applies equally to all persons, rich or poor, strong or weak, famous or obscure. God is not impressed with flowery words, studied artifice or manufactured sentiments, but with loving obedience to His commandments, not least "Thou shalt not kill".

That's why I am very grateful to Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island, America, who has punctured the balloon of President Barack Obama's rhetoric. In his local Catholic newspaper, Bishop Tobin wrote about Mr Obama's words in response to the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona:

"[T]here was something that left me cold, unimpressed and unmoved ... President Obama’s persistent and willful promotion of abortion renders his compassionate gestures and soaring rhetoric completely disingenuous ... As he stood on the stage in Tucson, he was a prophet without credentials; his speech, a song without a soul."

Bishop Tobin's cutting criticism of Mr Obama is in stark contrast to the silence of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in response to British pro-abortion leaders. For example, none of the bishops are on record as pointing out the hypocrisy of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron. I believe this is because the policy of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales is to respect persons in government and officialdom. This is evidenced by:

Monday, 24 January 2011

The worldwide pro-life movement is reflecting and commenting on the reports regarding Dr Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist accused of running the most bloody and sordid abortion business perhaps ever recorded. Dr Gosnell and his staff are accused, among many other things, of:

"Firstly, it is important that, in commenting on Dr Gosnell's case, pro-lifers are careful to uphold the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty, however overwhelming the evidence in this case. Dr Gosnell must receive a fair trial, for the sake of truth, justice and mercy. My comments on his case are dependent upon Dr Gosnell actually being proved guilty in a court of law.

Secondly, Dr Gosnell's alleged crimes constitute but one case among many - though perhaps the worst recorded one - of gross moral degradation among abortionists. The details of Dr Gosnell's alleged degradation are indications that abortion is wrong, as those details mirror very closely the details of other cases of mass killing. For example, Dr Gosnell's alleged collection of baby feet is similar to the eyeballs collected by Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. (It should be noted that after the second world war Mengele was an abortionist and was at one point detained by the authorities following the death of one of his women patients.)

Lastly, many abortionists will, like Mengele, remain morally asleep until death, but there is a growing number of abortion centre staff whose consciences reawaken. The prosecutor in Dr Gosnell's case has been reported as saying that he may ask the courts to impose the death penalty on Dr Gosnell. It is therefore vitally important that religious believers pray for Dr Gosnell, that his current ignominy will became the occasion of his conversion. I will be praying in union with Human Life International's prayer campaign for the conversion of abortionists."

Sunday, 23 January 2011

Scientists in Hong Kong are reported to have developed a blood test for Down's syndrome, using DNA. Janet Thomas of No Less Human, a group within SPUC representing disabled people, gave me her response to the news:

"This article refers to the underlying assumption by the medical profession and the national pre-natal testing programme that it is acceptable to kill on the grounds of disability. The most common disability sought and detected is that of Down’s syndrome (or more properly Trisomy 21). It was noted in an article in the BMJ many years ago that '..studies show that detecting and eliminating two babies with Down’s syndrome by screening programmes costs one ‘normal’ baby who succumbs as a result of the programme. The loss of one ‘normal’ baby is thought to be a price worth paying.' (Venn-Treloar, J. “Nuchal Translucency – screening without consent” British Medical Journal 12 September 1998)

This new blood test only seeks to ensure that as few ‘normal’ babies are lost in the attempt to detect and eliminate all Down’s syndrome babies. However, the vast majority of pre-natal tests aim to detect disabled babies with the aim of aborting them and this so–called 'accurate new DNA test' is specifically aimed at Down’s syndrome babies.

Economic arguments are sometimes presented to women, to justify pre-natal detection of disability. These claim that as disabled people 'cost society a lot of money' it is preferable to detect disabled babies in the womb. They can then be aborted and save the country the money it would have spent in caring for them. (“Hidden cost of testing for Down’s” by Dr. Kieran Sweeney. The Times 5 April 1994; White Page, C. “Screening for Fragile X is cost effective and accurate.” British Medical Journal 26 July 1997; “Reducing the Risk: Safer Pregnancy and Childbirth. HMSO. London. 1977)

Pre-natal testing sends out a strong message to adult disabled people that society would very much rather that they did not exist.

No Less Human campaigns to protect the most vulnerable of human beings from harm because it holds as the foundational principle of a civilised society that every human being has the right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

Pre-natal testing in order to eliminate those found to have a disability, in this case Down’s syndrome, can never be ethical, because it involves denying to disabled babies their infinite human worth, and their absolute right to life."

Saturday, 22 January 2011

I am very disturbed to read that Germany's National Academy of Sciences (known as the Leopoldina) has recommended the explicit legalisation of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which embryonic children are tested for genetic anomalies and destroyed if deemed unworthy of life. Although IVF is permitted in Germany, embryo research per se is banned, though last July the federal supreme court ruled that PGD did not fall under the ban. A main reason for the ban is a desire to prevent any repetition of Nazi eugenics, which so corrupted German science and medicine and which caused the deaths of millions, including the sick and disabled. (Another, newer reason to maintain the ban would be the development of ethical alternatives.)

Eugenics is not something of the Nazi past: it is being increasingly promoted and practised around the world under a variety of approved guises. The very foundation of human rights is at risk once members of the human family have their right to life negated because they are labelled as disposable. I am therefore very glad to announce that Dr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, will be visiting Britain in March to address clergy around the country on the subject of eugenics.

"an evolutionary inevitability. We are living too long. It's not viable. I can't think of any reason to stay alive once the mind goes. It is an existential nightmare that you can't get out of life. Medical science got us into this and medical science will have to get us out. Of course, there are legal difficulties, but people are ahead of the Government on this. It is a residue of Christian feeling – this idea of the sanctity of life – that is holding things back, but we have to get rid of this primitive feeling."

“Mr Amis’ idea of evolution is bizarrely contradictory. He says that euthanasia is ‘an evolutionary inevitability’ because human beings ‘are living too long’. He blames ‘medical science’ for what he regards as an unviable excess of longevity. Yet many of his fellow atheists would regard the recent advances in medical science as evidence that the human race is evolving into a higher state of understanding, beyond the Christian sanctity-of-life idea which Amis dismisses as a 'primitive feeling'. Mr Amis should also revise his understanding of history. Societies which lack or reject the Christian sanctity-of-life idea descend frequently into primitive atavism. The logical conclusion of Mr Amis’ comment that he 'can't think of any reason to stay alive once the mind goes' is approval of the murder of the mentally incapable, such as under the Nazi euthanasia programme.”

As I noted last January (after Mr Amis proposed the establishment of death booths), when opposition by the Catholic Church put a halt to the adult euthanasia programme within Nazi Germany, the technology was sent to Eastern Europe for use in the Jewish extermination programme. This included mobile gas vans and then the infamous gas chambers

In last night's broadcast, Mr Amis said:

"I imagined that, in the future, there would be something like a civil war between the young and the old."

Mr Amis is partly right. As the Pontifical Council for the Family said in 1994:

"One of the more serious consequences of the ageing of the population is the risk of damage to solidarity between generations. This could lead to real struggles between the generations for a share in economic resources. Perhaps discussions about euthanasia are not extraneous to these conflicting trends."

The "ageing of the population" means not simply an increase in the total number of people living past working age. Before the mid-20th century, most countries had a significantly larger number of people under 16 than over 60. Since the mid-20th century, all developed countries and an increasing number of developing countries have been gradually inverting that population pyramid. That inversion is not only or even primarily due to increased longevity, but to fertility rates in the West having been below replacement level for decades, which in turn is mainly the result of contraception and abortion. Mr Amis wants to hand victory in the civil war to the young by promoting the death of the old. Thus we can see how contraception, abortion and euthanasia really do form a culture of death, where people turn in on each other. How different from the culture of life, centred on the family, where both young and old are welcomed, cherished and protected.

Thursday, 20 January 2011

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, has announced 11 March as the date of the Irish general election. My colleague Pat Buckley of European Life Network (pictured) has written some important guidance on his blog, which I encourage all my Irish readers to follow. Pat writes:

"I would encourage all my Irish colleagues to contact representatives of all parties to clarify their position on the critical social issues such as the right to life of the unborn and to vote only for pro-life, pro-family candidates. It would be a grave error for political parties to focus only on economic policies when there are equally disastrous social policies that require urgent attention

...

I am convinced that strong statements now by all parties on the importance of the natural family based on marriage, the right to life from conception to natural death, the rights of parents in respect of their children's development and education together with real commitments to improve their position in the future administration, will attract real support from the electorate particularly if these issues are held sacred and and are non-negotiable and without compromise.

I would also ask colleagues to contact me when and if you succeed in getting real commitments from potential candidates so that we can make a strategic list of candidates who are willing to make firm commitments on critical issues such as the right to life of the unborn."

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Earlier this week the Guttmacher Institute released its abortion figures which revealed that, after years of decline, the abortion rate in the United States rose very slightly between 2005 and 2008.

Sharon Camp, President and Ceo of the Guttmacher Institute, said that this increase indicated an urgent need to make contraceptives more widely available:

"our stalled progress should be an urgent message to policymakers that we need to do more to increase access to contraceptive services to prevent unintended pregnancy, while ensuring access to abortion".

This sentiment was echoed in a press release by Planned Parenthood, one of the world's major abortion providers, which said that:

"[t]he first step we can take as a nation is to increase access to affordable contraception".

However, according to the report 54% of the women who had abortions had used contraception in the month that they became pregnant and only 8% of women had never used any form of contraception.

This is an all too familiar script. In the UK we know that abortion rates for under-16s are higher now than when the British government's strategy to cut abortion rates was introduced in 1999. A major focus of that strategy was to inform children about contraception and to make contraception easily available to school children. Professor David Paton of Nottingham University has studied in detail the depth of the strategy's failure.

That contraception does not prevent either unintended pregnancies or abortion is evident from the Guttmacher report. As I blogged earlier this month, there is growing evidence of the close association between contraception and abortion. Abortion follows in the wake of contraception. The provision of contraception not only fails to prevent unplanned pregnancies but results in unborn children being victimised to death as the unwelcome consequences of so-called contraceptive failure.

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Dominic Lawson of The Independent newspaper has written an excellent article using the latest information to debunk the over-population myth (about which I blogged several times in 2009: 15 Jan, 30 May, 1 June, 28 Aug, 20 Nov, 29 Dec). Do read his article in full. Mr Lawson writes:

"the experts are coming round to the view that it has all been one giant false alarm".

He cites a number of useful new sources, including:

Dr Tim Fox, Institution of Mechanical Engineers: 'We can meet the challenge of feeding a planet of 9 billion people through the application of existing technologies'

"[D]etailed report on "sustainability" published last week by the French national agricultural and development research agencies came up with the same answer."

"Joel Cohen, the professor of populations at Columbia University's Earth Institute, told National Geographic: Those who say the whole problem [of climate change] is population are wrong. It's not even the dominant factor.'"

Mr Lawson argues cogently that fear of the earth being over-populated is based on misanthropy and hype. This is good news, because that misanthropy and hype will eventually crumble, giving way to what Lawson calls "rational optimism" and thus to protection of the unborn, the disabled and the elderly. The culture of death is narrow, negative and dangerously foolish. The culture of life is open, positive and confidently real. The pro-life movement, the planet and its peope have a bright future - however dark the passing cloud of the over-population myth.

Monday, 17 January 2011

On Friday Pope Benedict gave an important pro-life and pro-family address to civic officials in Rome and its surrounding region. Pope Benedict, describing the family as the

"the primary cell of society...founded on marriage between a man and a woman"

insisted that

"the family must, then, be supported by policies ... which aim at its consolidation and development, accompanied by appropriate educational efforts".

later adding that:

"[L]arge families...are too often penalised".

Pope Benedict continued:

"The approval of forms of union which pervert the essence and goal of the family ends up penalising those people who, not without effort, seek to maintain stable emotional ties which are juridically guaranteed and publicly recognised. In this context, the Church looks with favour upon all initiatives which seek to educate young people to experience love as a giving of self, with an exalted and oblational view of sexuality. To this end the various components of society must agree on the objectives of education, in order for human love not to be reduced to an article of consumption, but to be seen and lived as a fundamental experience which gives existence meaning and a goal".

"Since 'openness to life is at the centre of true development' the large number of abortions that take place in our region cannot leave us indifferent. The Christian community, through its many care homes, pro-life centres and similar initiatives, is committed to accompanying and supporting women who encounter difficulties in welcoming a new life. Public institutions must also offer their support so that family consultancies are in a position to help women overcome the causes that may lead them to interrupt their pregnancy".

"[T]he ageing population raises new problems. ... Although many old people can reply on the support and care of their own families, growing numbers are alone and have need of medical and healthcare assistance"

expressing a hope that Catholic healthcare institutions will:

"renew[] my call to promote a culture of respect for life until its natural end".

I have read that the attitude of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales to papal and Vatican texts is often to claim that "This is England, things are different here, this text doesn't apply here". Such an attitude simply does not wash. The natural moral law and the Catholic Church's teaching on it are universal. The moral milieu in England is very similar to Rome today and its region, to most of the rest of the developed world, and to parts of the developing world, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, contraception and homosexuality are prevalent.

Last Sunday's Gospel was St John's testimony of the wedding feast at Cana. Mary told the servants to: "Do whatever He tells you." Pope Benedict is speaking with the voice and authority of Christ when he upholds Catholic natural law teaching on pro-life/pro-family issues. The Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales must therefore choose whether or not they are the obedient servants of Christ.

* The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.97) it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

As if to reinforce my concerns, I see that Durex, the makers of barrier contraceptives, have advertisedone of those Soho Masses, taking place last month, on their website for healthcare professionals.

The Durex website contains material of a character deeply hostile to Catholic teaching on human sexuality. It's not suprising, then, that they would promote the celebration of a Mass, the organizers of which are openly hostile to Catholic teaching on human sexuality and where attendees receive Holy Communion in spite of openly admitting they are and intend to stay in homosexual relationships.
What's so deeply shocking about the Durex advert for the Mass in Soho is the further evidence it provides of episcopal betrayal - the tragic betrayal of young people and Catholic families by Archbishop Nichols and his failure to give clear witness to the the truth on this matter and related matters. The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.97) it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Friday, 14 January 2011

European Life Network of Dublin told the media today that Boots the pharmacists could violate the Irish constitution if they go ahead and supply morning-after pills. The network's Patrick Buckley said:

"Morning-after pills can cause an early abortion by stopping the early embryo from implanting in the womb. They're not just contraceptives.

“The action by Boots therefore contravenes both Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution which protects unborn life and section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). This states: ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.’

"Coming so soon after the ruling of the European court in the A, B and C case, Boots' decision shows just how rapidly the threat to unborn children is spreading in Irish society. Pro-life organizations and individuals can only hope to defeat these attacks by working together to defend all human life from the moment of fertilisation. If a referendum is to be offered pro-life people should insist that the wording of any new amendment should include protection for all unborn children regardless of the circumstances of their conception.

“The manufacturers of the so-called morning after pill claim it does not cause an abortion but they contradict themselves. The website of the manufacturer of the Plan B pill states: ‘Plan B temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary, prevents fertilization, prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.’ However, the manufacturer’s website continues: ‘Plan B is not an abortion pill—if you take plan B you will not be terminating a pregnancy. If you are already pregnant and take plan B, there’s no evidence that plan B will harm you or the fetus…’

“Statements like this are used to make people believe that the morning after pill doesn’t destroy an unborn human life. Saying ‘Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus’ is just another way of saying it may cause the newly conceived embryo to die because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the womb. The term ‘a fertilised egg’ is misleading. Once fertilization takes place the result is a new embryo and therefore a new unique human life. For this reason, the use of Plan B may violate an unborn child’s constitutionally guaranteed right to life."

Thursday, 13 January 2011

In his new year address to the Vatican's diplomatic corps, Pope Benedict XVI has highlighted the increasing pressure on individuals throughout the world to co-operate with laws that abuse and destroy human life. Pope Benedict said that:

"Christians are even required at times to act in the exercise of their profession with no reference to their religious and moral convictions, and even in opposition to them, as for example where laws are enforced limiting the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care or legal professionals."

Pope Benedict highlighted the recent success of the pro-life lobby in the Council of Europe in securing a right to conscientious objection to unethical practices for medical professionals .

"In this context, one can only be gratified by the adoption by the Council of Europe last October of a resolution protecting the right to conscientious objection on the part of medical personnel vis-à-vis certain acts which gravely violate the right to life, such as abortion."

Pope Benedict is referring to the reversal of the Christine McCafferty report last October. The council's parliamentary assembly rejected a proposed crack down on medical staff who refuse to be complicit in abortion and other anti-life practices, and instead voted for a resolution that protected the rights of medical workers. Prior to that vote, SPUC had written to its supporters and contacts in the member-states of the Council of Europe.

Despite successes such as these, it is vital that we all continue to follow Pope Benedict's example in speaking out against the increasing pressure from state authorities to co-operate with anti-life practices. Pope Benedict also spoke boldly about the need to oppose sex education which "reflect[s] an anthropology opposed to faith and to right reason". It is thought that Pope Benedict's comments refer to the situation in Spain, where the government introduced mandatory sex education classes for children between the ages of ten and sixteen in 2007.

However, Pope Benedict could just as easily have been speaking about the situation in this country where the government are assisted in their bid to provide children with contraception and abortion by the Catholic Education Service, through their co-operation with Connexions - an agency that trains its employees to promote contraception and to refer school children for abortion without their parents knowledge.

We at SPUC have said that we will seek leave to intervene in a court case on the legality of so-called bedroom abortions. We are responding to a High Court challenge launched by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of Britain’s main abortion providers. BPAS is seeking to widen the scope for using the drug misoprostol, used in conjunction with RU486, the abortion drug. BPAS uses the drugs to poison the uterine environment and kill unborn children. Allowing misoprostol to be taken at home will increase the numbers of women delivering their dead child at home.

Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, told the media tonight:

“Abortion is an appalling ordeal for women, as well as the killing of an unborn child. In taking this legal action BPAS is trivialising abortion and jeopardising women’s welfare. We will seek to intervene in this case on behalf of unborn children, whose right to life has been protected from the time of Hippocrates in ancient Greece to the establishing of international human rights law in modern times. In contrast, the right to abortion – the killing of an unborn baby - does not exist in English law or any international human rights instrument.

“Ann Furedi, head of BPAS, has said that ‘rising abortion rates are not a problem’ (Spiked Online, 31 March 2008). This cynical attitude is deeply disturbing”.

Some facts about RU486 and misoprostol:

The woman is directly involved in the abortion by having to take the pills herself.

The nature of the drug means that the woman must live with her abortion over the course of a number of days. The president of Roussel Uclaf, the original makers of RU486, said “The woman must live with this for a full week. This is an appalling psychological ordeal”. (Edouard Sakiz, chairman, Roussel-Uclaf, August 1990)

The woman may abort at home and suffer the distress of seeing the expelled embryo/foetus, which she is required to keep and return to the hospital or clinic to help determine if the abortion is complete. If BPAS challenge is successful, women taking misoprostol will go into labour at home. This can be very distressing as labour, usually associated with child-birth, now becomes associated with the delivery of a dead child.

Use of RU486/misoprostol may cause any of the following: haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, severe pain requiring strong pain killers, incomplete abortion, rupture of the uterus, vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, flushing, chills, backache, difficulty in breathing, chest pain, palpitations, rise in temperature and fall in blood pressure. The number and diverse nature of the side effects of RU486/ misoprostol point to the fact that these are powerful chemicals.

“When it comes to understanding what human sexuality is for, there is a lot that we have to explore. Because I think what is at one level in the broad perspective clear, is that there is an intrinsic link between procreation and human sexuality. Now how do we start from that principle, not lose it, and have an open ongoing conversation with those who say, well, that’s not my experience?”

Regarding Catholic teaching on homosexuality*, the archbishop is reported to have said:

“How do we bring together some principles that if you like are written into the broad book of nature, and individual experiences? That’s the area that we have to be sensitive and open to, and genuinely wanting to explore."

"Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: 'Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness' (Is 5:20)." (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.58)

When will our bishops, the successors of the Apostles, give us clear Christ-like leadership on pro-life/pro-family issues?

*The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.97) it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

In February I blogged about an amazing interview with Abby Johnson, the former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion centre in America who became pro-life. Abby has now published a book, "unPLANNED", about the reality of Planned Parenthood and of her pro-life conversion. LifeSiteNews.com has published the first chapter and below are some key extracts from Abby's stunning account.

"[Alt]hough I’d been with Planned Parenthood for eight years, I had never been called into the exam room to help the medical team during an abortion"

"I could not have imagined how the next 10 minutes would shake the foundation of my values and change the course of my life"

"I could see the entire, perfect profile of a baby. It looks just like Grace at 12 weeks, I thought, surprised, remembering my very first peek at my daughter, three years before, snuggled securely inside my womb."

"[A] new image entered the video screen. The cannula — a strawshaped instrument attached to the end of the suction tube — had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby’s side. It looked like an invader on the screen, out of place. Wrong. It just looked wrong."

"My eyes flew to the patient’s face; tears flowed from the corners of her eyes. I could see she was in pain."

"As the cannula pressed its side, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that it could feel the cannula, and it did not like what it was feeling."

"I had a sudden urge to yell, “Stop!” To shake the woman and say, “Look at what is happening to your baby! Wake up! Hurry! Stop them!”"

"The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube ... I was frozen in disbelief"

"The image of the tiny body, mangled and sucked away, was replaying in my mind"

"[I]t hit me like a lightning bolt: What I have told people for years, what I’ve believed and taught and defended, is a lie."

"And right there, standing beside the table, my hand on the weeping woman’s belly, this thought came from deep within me: Never again! Never again."

"Like so many patients I’d seen before, she continued to cry, in obvious emotional and physical pain."

"I was...looking to understand how I found myself in this place — living a lie, spreading a lie, and hurting the very women I so wanted to help."

"Abby's insider-story is a powerful indication that among abortion centre staff, even the most senior staff, many may be unaware of the full reality of abortion. It also indicates that many may not be personally convinced that abortion is good, believing instead in their own rhetoric. This is a sign of hope for the unborn, because the brittleness of believing one’s own rhetoric will naturally crumble into self-doubt. The pro-abortion lobby has been complaining for years that fewer and fewer doctors want to be involved in abortion. Abby's story gives us a glimmer of hope that the abortion industry may one day collapse from inside."

"[The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)] is one of the worst organizations and I have no fear in denouncing them"

"[O]nce you accept abortion, the next step will be to accept euthanasia. This is [the anti-life lobby's] global plan."

(about the right response to population questions): "What we need is not to reduce the guest at the table but to increase the seats so people can sit at the table to eat."

Cardinal Rodriguez's boldness in speaking out against the culture of death is a model for other bishops. Similarly, Cardinal Raymond Burke was asked recently: “What can the European bishops do against abortion?” Cardinal Burke replied that the bishops must “[e]ducate people about the reality of abortion” and “the intrinsic evil of destroying an innocent and defenceless human life”. Cardinal Burke added that:

“Very often bishops are silenced, or there is the attempt to silence bishops with the claim that the teaching on abortion is a peculiar belief of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore bishops are wrong to introduce this discourse into the public square, into civil discourse. But the fact of the matter is that the inviolability of innocent human life is part of the natural moral law that is written in every human heart; so that not only do bishops have the right to make this discourse in public and to insist upon the common good - which is first and foremost secured by the respect for human life itself - but they have the duty, for the sake of the world (which the Church is called to serve and to save) to announce this moral truth ... [Europe’s bishops must] insist with civil officials that if they are true servants of the common good, then they must first and foremost protect the right to life of the unborn.”

So I pray earnestly that bishops throughout Europe and the world will listen to Cardinals Rodriguez and Burke, rejecting any active or passive acquiescence with abortion (as we see with the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales) and become strong men who do their duty on behalf of the weak.

Extract from ACN interview with Cardinal Rodriguez, published 10 January 2011

ACN: Some Latin American countries have focused their strategies of poverty reduction through birth control. Can you tell us, is this a misguided approach and where is this approach coming from?

Cardinal: This has been for a very long time - perhaps fifty years - in the UN Population department. They decided that we were growing too fast. Of course we did in Honduras! We were only 1.5 Million in 1959 and we are now 7 Million, but we were under populated because of civil wars. We had a century of civil wars and sickness. When health conditions improved we started to grow, but we are still under populated as a country. We need labour to develop. There is a nation in South America. This country started birth control in the beginning of the 1950’s. What is the result? They never grew, and there is no industry that succeeds without consumers. They are so dependent on the bigger countries that surround them. This is a mistake. What we need is not to reduce the guest at the table but to increase the seats so people can sit at the table to eat.

ACN: "You just mentioned that the UN has had a hand in this. Would you say that the influence on birth control policy is coming from within the local government or is it coming from organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that are external but imposing their policy on the continent?

Cardinal: "That is one of the worst organizations and I have no fear in denouncing them because they are using very dirty methods and even insulting those who do not agree with them. They’re paying, sometimes bribing and misinforming the population. We do not need this. We need help for development. We do not need bribes to corrupt the people in government. We need resources to be employed in favour of the people and not destroying the people."

ACN: "What would be the reasons for the IPPF and other organizations? What would be their agenda in the continent like Latin America?"

Cardinal: "They have decided that we are not good partners for their businesses because, as you know, since our continent is mainly a Catholic continent, we will never accept their “Philosophy” which is against Creation, against God. We are not comfortable with their reasoning, and of course, I’ve said it truly, and I have said it in the UN. For example my country decided that marriage is something according to natural law - the union between a man and a woman. Since there are lobbyists who do agree with this they will press our congresses, they will attack the Church saying that we are wrong but we know that we are not wrong and that we want to live in peace like human beings with no deviations."

ACN: "Abortion is a big issue at the moment. There is a great pressure on many of the Catholic countries in Latin America to entrench abortion in the law. Can one say that we are losing the battle in this regard? Do you see that the governments in the countries in Latin America will impose abortion?"

Cardinal: "They are trying to do it every two or three years and we have to be always alert. I’ve been a bishop for thirty years and I’ve been always opposing and talking in a reasonable way to the representatives of the Congress and until now we were able to stop that kind of law because once you accept abortion, the next step will be to accept euthanasia. This is their global plan. So what is the purpose? Is to destroy life. This is the culture of death that John-Paul II was always warning us about."

Sunday, 9 January 2011

Last Sunday I was very happy to report that there is a flourishing pro-life movement in the former Soviet republic of Belarus. This Sunday I am also very happy to pass on a report of great pro-life action in Jamaica. A letter in this weekend's Catholic Herald newspaper here in England reports that Catholics in Kingston, Jamaica are building a

"hospital for those women who are struggling with their pregnancies. There will be pre-natal care, skills training, support of all kinds and, in the eventuality of being able to look after the baby, the mother can have him or her taken into care."

This initiative is a great way to respond to the UK's government's renewed export of abortion to the developing world. So congratulations to the Catholics of Kingston for giving pro-lifers around the world a great example.

Saturday, 8 January 2011

More evidence is emerging that the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) is actively undermining the protection of life and family in Europe. Dr Jakob Cornides, a lawyer-author who spoke at SPUC's 2008 national conference, has written a paper entitled "Human rights pitted against man (II) – the network is back", which follows his 2008 paper on the same theme and which exposes the FRA's agenda. In September 2009 SPUC's Pat Buckley warned how the European Parliament was using the FRA to put pressure on EU member-states to change laws which protect children. Now the FRA is moving to undermine the institution of the family by seeking to entrench support for same-sex unions.* The Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) has kindly provided SPUC with the following review below of Dr Cornides' paper:
1. This paper by Jakob Cornides follows an earlier paper he wrote in 2008. That paper was prompted by an opinion provided by an EU network of experts who, relying on work by radical pro-abortion groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), argued for a right to abortion and the ceding of the right to conscientious objection to abortion. Cornides's main point was that radical lobby groups, coupled with like-minded EU appointed ‘experts’, are undermining genuine human rights and thereby subverting the common good.
2. The present paper is essentially a response to the same sort of subversion, in this case to extend throughout the European Union the legal benefits of marriage to all same sex couples.
3. The newly formed EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) recently published a study entitled “Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation in the EU Member States”. Expertise for the study was provided by FRALEX (Fundamental Rights Agency Legal Experts), a significant number of whom were also members of the now defunct network of experts who argued for a right to abortion.
4. The strategy used by both the expounders for a right to abortion and by those for the right to marriage status for same sex couples is essentially the same – pretend that the rights already exist and thereby avoid real public debate and democratic decision-making.
5. FRALEX holds a position of considerable power. Cornides notes that it is funded to the tune of at least 10 million Euros over 4 years, likely involves 100 staff, “receives broad media coverage”, and has “unique access to political institutions”. “FRALEX is now in an exclusive and very powerful position to feed its ideology into the law-making process of the EU and the member states.”
6. FRALEX’s study on Homophobia makes the claim that “International human rights law requires that same-sex couples either have access to an institution … which provides them with the same advantages as ... marriage”, and if states don’t provide such an institution, they must nevertheless extend the advantages to all same-sex relationships which have “a sufficient degree of permanency”. Cornides exposes the nonsense in any claim that international human rights law requires any such thing, and furthermore, argues that FRALEX’s findings are intrinsically flawed and ironically would in fact curtail the rights of same-sex couples in some EU states if implemented.
7. Typical of the tactics used by the FRALEX experts is their reference to the case of Joslin v. New Zealand by the UN Human Rights Committee. In that case all 15 members agreed that there is no treaty obligation on states parties to provide for same-sex marriage, yet FRALEX focuses on opinions given by two members rather than the committee's actual decision, which was unanimous.
8. Cornides argues (convincingly) that FRALEX has a ‘creative’ approach to statistics. There have been few successful complaints about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; for example, in the UK, 1324 complaints were made for 2003-6 and 35 succeeded. FRALEX argue that “fewer registered complaints clearly does not mean that there is less discrimination”. They provide no evidence to back up such an important statement. Even so, believing the problem to exist, FRALEX proposes the establishment of ‘equality bodies’ which could act on their own initiative, or from anonymous complaints, using trained lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) staff. Cornides’ concern is that there is a real risk that “the creation of specialized agencies could be tantamount to creating, or at least considerably inflating, the problem that such agencies purport to counter, and for which, so far, any evidence of its magnitude or very existence is lacking.”
9. The term homophobia, central to the FRALEX study, is itself problematic. Cornides discusses the nature of real phobias and how the term homophobia is often used in a “defamatory and totalitarian way” to imply that anyone opposed to the equivalence of all sexual orientations is either “mentally disordered” (possesses a phobia) or “intrinsically evil” (akin to racist).
10. The central issue that should really have been addressed by a study such as that conducted by FRALEX concerns the nature of marriage itself, and whether there really can be equivalence between opposite and same sex relationships. Cornides notes that it is telling that “not a single organization representing the interests, or benefits to society, of traditional families, attended a roundtable meeting organized to discuss follow-up to the FRALEX study.” How can something so fundamental to society receive such biased input?
11. In summary, Cornides's concerns are really twofold. First, that radical groups are attempting to redefine human rights by subversive means, thereby foisting on sovereign countries something to which they have not democratically agreed. And second, that in the FRALEX study sexuality is portrayed and promoted in a particular manner that is detached from its broader meaning. This narrow conception of sexuality has the potential to damage marriage and therefore the stability of families and communities.

*The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.97) it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.